Stuff I Would Just As Soon Not Known

[Stone holm]

I had always felt that in the Church knowledge was a blessing and that we should encourage members as knowledgeable as possible by reading not only the Scriptures, but the sayings of the Prophets, and the History of the Church.  I also always felt that the more knowledge people had including the blemishes and awkward prior activities, the better.  As a result I was normally critical of the attempts to sanitize our history and deny the influence of politics, culture and the world on the Church.   But of late, I have begun to feel that perhaps there are some things that I now know that I would possibly have been better off not knowing.

 

This feeling has arisen as a result of the doctrine of the Second Annointing.  I have tended to do my study based on the Journal of Discourses and teachings of the Prophets, and have shied away from the internet because there is so much false information on it and vicious articles written by former members and professional ministers.  So when the subject came up and I got berated for not having done internet research, I did some internet research and it looks fairly obvious if you were surfing the net you would have known about the rite of the Second Annointing even if the Church hadn’t really openly taught it.

 

Unfortunately, in the process of doing that internet research I got exposed to stuff I would just as soon not have thought about, namely: all the posts arguing over whether Mitt Romney had received the Second Annointing  and whether Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun have had their Temple work done.  So the problem as I see it, is that it is very distasteful to have to do internet research in order to find out things about the Church, and in the process get exposed to stuff you would rather not know.  So should a member stay ignorant because they avoid general internet research on Church matters, and simply go with the sanitized stuff put out by the Church?

[thesometimesaint]

Ignorance is not bliss. God knows everything even the bad stuff. So if we really want to be like God we have to know the good from the bad.

[ERayR]

If you have a tendency to believe the worst of the Church and the leaders then it is probably best to shut off your computer and go home teaching.

[Questing Beast]

I had always felt that in the Church knowledge was a blessing and that we should encourage members as knowledgeable as possible by reading not only the Scriptures, but the sayings of the Prophets, and the History of the Church.  I also always felt that the more knowledge people had including the blemishes and awkward prior activities, the better.  As a result I was normally critical of the attempts to sanitize our history and deny the influence of politics, culture and the world on the Church.   But of late, I have begun to feel that perhaps there are some things that I now know that I would possibly have been better off not knowing.

 

This feeling has arisen as a result of the doctrine of the Second Annointing.  I have tended to do my study based on the Journal of Discourses and teachings of the Prophets, and have shied away from the internet because there is so much false information on it and vicious articles written by former members and professional ministers.  So when the subject came up and I got berated for not having done internet research, I did some internet research and it looks fairly obvious if you were surfing the net you would have known about the rite of the Second Annointing even if the Church hadn’t really openly taught it.

 

Unfortunately, in the process of doing that internet research I got exposed to stuff I would just as soon not have thought about, namely: all the posts arguing over whether Mitt Romney had received the Second Annointing  and whether Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun have had their Temple work done.  So the problem as I see it, is that it is very distasteful to have to do internet research in order to find out things about the Church, and in the process get exposed to stuff you would rather not know.  So should a member stay ignorant because they avoid general internet research on Church matters, and simply go with the sanitized stuff put out by the Church?

Like science, I think that the Internet is self-correcting. The disinformation, misinformation, dissembling, obfuscation, distortion and lies cannot survive in an open climate of exchange. The moment we detect disagreement we are off searching for confirmation of the truth, and it comes sooner rather than later. That is why anyone trying to "sanitize" a story or position by deliberately leaving out known facts is doomed to be exposed as a dissembler or liar. The Net is far more capable of being "policed" than printed books are, simply because the Net is so accessible and fast and ubiquitous.

 

As for your regrets about knowing some things: how is knowledge ever disagreeable? Ignorance is to be deplored, not learning.

 

We worry about how others will take the full, unadulterated truth. That isn't our concern, even if it feels like it is. Each person will learn. Trying to put learning into some kind of controlled "speed" format is taking upon ourselves the role of God. If the facts or evidence are readily available (and today all of it is readily available) then people of all ages will learn of them. Trying to limit how much and how soon is pointless, imho, of course....

[omni]

If you have a tendency to believe the worst of the Church and the leaders then it is probably best to shut off your computer and go home teaching.

Don't forget to also read your scriptures and pray. It's a sure fire way to relieve any doubts one may have.

[Stone holm]

If you have a tendency to believe the worst of the Church and the leaders then it is probably best to shut off your computer and go home teaching.

 

Well not sure I get the connection there, but if you say so.

 

 

If you have a tendency to believe the worst of the Church and the leaders then it is probably best to shut off your computer and go home teaching.

 

Ignorance is not bliss. God knows everything even the bad stuff. So if we really want to be like God we have to know the good from the bad.

 

Well that is what I used to think, but that is also when I thought I still thought that I could get most of the doctrine and learn of all of the rites (perhaps not the details, but at least the existence of) by studying the Prophets, the histories written by prominent members, etc.  But now it appears that may not be the case, and you may have to dig through some of the stuff on the net in order to actually know about important things, which means that when you do a search you get all the vicious stuff as well.  Perhaps correllation is in fact right that all you need to know is what they deign to tell you.

[thesometimesaint]

Like science, I think that the Internet is self-correcting. The disinformation, misinformation, dissembling, obfuscation, distortion and lies cannot survive in an open climate of exchange. The moment we detect disagreement we are off searching for confirmation of the truth, and it comes sooner rather than later. That is why anyone trying to "sanitize" a story or position by deliberately leaving out known facts is doomed to be exposed as a dissembler or liar. The Net is far more capable of being "policed" than printed books are, simply because the Net is so accessible and fast and ubiquitous.

 

As for your regrets about knowing some things: how is knowledge ever disagreeable? Ignorance is to be deplored, not learning.

 

We worry about how others will take the full, unadulterated truth. That isn't our concern, even if it feels like it is. Each person will learn. Trying to put learning into some kind of controlled "speed" format is taking upon ourselves the role of God. If the facts or evidence are readily available (and today all of it is readily available) then people of all ages will learn of them. Trying to limit how much and how soon is pointless, imho, of course....

 

Unfortunately a lie has gone half way around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.

[volgadon]

So should a member stay ignorant because they avoid general internet research on Church matters, and simply go with the sanitized stuff put out by the Church?

 

 

 

Books are dead?

[foster]

If the ordinances of the Temple are made available to all who have entered mortality, shouldn't we expect find proxy work was done for the infamous?

Edited September 23, 2013 by foster

[Kenngo1969]

Don't forget to also read your scriptures and pray. It's a sure fire way to relieve any doubts one may have.

 

[insert mocking emoticon here, right Omni?]

 

That's actually pretty good advice, whether Omni really thinks it is or not.  The absolute worst thing that can be said about it is that it couldn't hurt.

[thesometimesaint]

Well not sure I get the connection there, but if you say so.

 

 

 

 

Well that is what I used to think, but that is also when I thought I still thought that I could get most of the doctrine and learn of all of the rites (perhaps not the details, but at least the existence of) by studying the Prophets, the histories written by prominent members, etc.  But now it appears that may not be the case, and you may have to dig through some of the stuff on the net in order to actually know about important things, which means that when you do a search you get all the vicious stuff as well.  Perhaps correllation is in fact right that all you need to know is what they deign to tell you.

 

It is what you do with the information that counts. I figure that if God can perfect an ignorant wretch like me. Everyone else is good to go.

[Questing Beast]

Unfortunately a lie has gone half way around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.

Why is truth slower than a lie?

 

If a lie is sensational/entertaining it usually has obvious aspects that manifest right from the get-go. If the Medía puts it out first nobody should assume that it is the truth, as "she" is in the entertainment business first, information business second.

 

The kinds of lies Stony is addressing are much slower and capable of careful examination....

[thesometimesaint]

If the ordinances of the Temple are made available to all who have entered mortality, shouldn't we expect find proxy work was done for the infamous?

 

The work will be done for eveyone eventually. Whether they accept it or not is another question.

[Stone holm]

Don't forget to also read your scriptures and pray. It's a sure fire way to relieve any doubts one may have.

 

Well you know, I thought that you could figure out certain Scriptures like the 132nd Section in that manner as well, but when I laid out a problem in the reasoning that people were using with regards to that Section and it got passed up the lines of authority with people either avoiding giving an answer or even understanding the question, I thought oh well.  Then I popped the question out on this Board and CASteinman actually gave an answer that made sense.  But the answer involved knowing about the Second Annointing.  As a result I became interested in the subject, but nobody locally appears to know anything about it.  And it became apparent that people who wanted a clear answer so they would know what to look and listen for were not getting it from the Church, but from the net.  Which perplexed me, why would the Church relegate members to the net to get clear answers instead of just giving them the answers direct?  An odd thing.  But the point, I am making is that if a person really wants a complete picture and a full understanding of the Church and our rites, it appears that basically we have no choice except to wade through some of the nonsense on the web.  Is that actually healthy?

[Questing Beast]

What's not healthy about it? Let the facts lead where they will. God Is in all things, so it's all good in the end because it will point to what Joy Is and is not.

 

"There is nothing to fear except fear itself"....

[Questing Beast]

Is a "second anointing" even necessary? Is any of the ordinance stuff necessary? Cut to the chase and ask the central questions, stop piffling around with the periphery questions....

[Stone holm]

What's not healthy about it? Let the facts lead where they will. God Is in all things, so it's all good in the end because it will point to what Joy Is and is not.

 

"There is nothing to fear except fear itself"....

 

Maybe it is healthy.  Personally have always tried to avoid the rantings of the antis and the various postings of former members, etc. on the web.  So I guess the question is it better to have a full understanding of the truth even if you have to wade through the muck to find it, or is it better to just stick with the sanitized version of the Church History and Gospel -- its not particularly good for your standing with fellow Mormons to discuss anything outside the sanitized version anyway, so maybe God doesn't want us to be all that knowledgeable.  And if that is true, then who am I to think otherwise.

[thesometimesaint]

Why is truth slower than a lie?

 

If a lie is sensational/entertaining it usually has obvious aspects that manifest right from the get-go. If the Medía puts it out first nobody should assume that it is the truth, as "she" is in the entertainment business first, information business second.

 

The kinds of lies Stony is addressing are much slower and capable of careful examination....

 

I don't know why that is. It just is the case.

 

For some reason the forbidden fruit has always had it allure. Also the Media is imfamous for positing that all ideas are of equal validity.

 

I wish that were the case. But for some reason it takes longer to explain something than it takes to uncritically reject it.

[Stone holm]

Is a "second anointing" even necessary? Is any of the ordinance stuff necessary? Cut to the chase and ask the central questions, stop piffling around with the periphery questions....

 

Well from my limited understanding, the answer to that as to the second annointing is no, but as to the other stuff yes.

[Okie67]

I don't know if same sex attraction is "born with" or "acquired," but I know the resultant behavior, for those who act on it, is considered sin in God's eyes. As I understand it, however, it's no worse a sin than somebody who commits adultery. Love the sinner, but don't condone the sin.

 

Solicitation removed.   We do not allow spamming on this board, because you added some content the spam will be removed from your posts in the event it was a newbie mistake.

[ERayR]

Well not sure I get the connection there, but if you say so.

 

 

 

If information is causing you problems just enjoy the company of fellow members.

[smac97]

> I had always felt that in the Church knowledge was a blessing and that we should encourage members as knowledgeable as possible by reading not only the Scriptures, but the sayings of the Prophets, and the History of the Church.

==Generally, yes. I think that we as a Church have a bigger problem with members knowing too little and not studying enough, rather than knowing/studying too much.

> I also always felt that the more knowledge people had including the blemishes and awkward prior activities, the better.

==I'm not sure I agree with that, for a few reasons.

==First, we generally lack context for historical events. For example, we weren't there when Joseph Smith ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. It's easy for us to second guess that decision nearly 200 years later, but we weren't there. We were not in those circumstances. This lack of context makes it very easy for us to judge unrighteously/ignorantly.

==Second, a "warts and all" approach may not take into account repentance. I, for one, am grateful that my every sin and indiscretion has not been laid bare for the world to see. If it were, I would likely either rebel or crumple.

==Third, emphasis on "blemishes" tends to lead to overemphasis. I am not saying that we should totally ignore human foibles, but we should not given them undue attention, either.

> As a result I was normally critical of the attempts to sanitize our history and deny the influence of politics, culture and the world on the Church. But of late, I have begun to feel that perhaps there are some things that I now know that I would possibly have been better off not knowing.

==I wonder if Latter-day Saints resist over-emphasizing sociopolitical influences because they see such emphasis - perhaps correctly - as an attempt to delegitimize spiritual influences on church-related events.

==Take, for example, the 1978 revelation on the priesthood. Cynics chalk this up as nothing but the result of "the influence of politics, culture and the world on the Church." Mormons, put on the defensive by people criticizing their faith, may react with a purist approach and suggest that there were not such influences at all. The reality, I think, is a mixture of the two. I don't see that as a problem. We don't live in a bubble where we are free from sociopolitical pressures. And we also are not free from biases and limited light and knowledge.

==In other words, God takes into account the circumstances in which we find ourselves. The cessation of polygamy exemplifies the conflation of these influences. Wilford Woodruff was quite clear about God taking sociopolitical issues into account (look at the excerpts appended to the OD-1). However, Pres. Woodruff was also clear about God being the author of the decision to end polygamy.

> This feeling has arisen as a result of the doctrine of the Second Annointing.

==A doctrine we are apparently not supposed to talk about much.

> I have tended to do my study based on the Journal of Discourses and teachings of the Prophets, and have shied away from the internet because there is so much false information on it and vicious articles written by former members and professional ministers. So when the subject came up and I got berated for not having done internet research, I did some internet research and it looks fairly obvious if you were surfing the net you would have known about the rite of the Second Annointing even if the Church hadn’t really openly taught it.

==I was in the military for nearly two years before I served my mission. As I approached the end of my time in the military and as my time to enter the MTC neared, I started writing to my father and asking him questions about the temple. He gave me some general answers, but in the main he said that it would not be appropriate for him to divulge too much about it. In looking back, he was right. When it comes to certain matters of significant sacredness, the study thereof should be circumspect, and it should be in the right time, and place, and circumstances, and information should be obtained from appropriate sources.

==Looking for guidance on sacred matters from enemies of the Restored Gospel is, in my view, not well-advised.

> Unfortunately, in the process of doing that internet research I got exposed to stuff I would just as soon not have thought about, namely: all the posts arguing over whether Mitt Romney had received the Second Annointing and whether Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun have had their Temple work done.

==I would invite you to consider the etymology of the term "profanity." It is from Old French profane (12c.) and directly from Latin profanus "unholy, not consecrated," according to Barnhart from pro fano "not admitted into the temple (with the initiates)," literally "out in front of the temple," from pro- "before" (see pro-) + fano, ablative of fanum "temple" (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=profane). To "profane" is to be irreverent "to any thing sacred." "A man is profane when he takes the name of God in vain, or treats sacred things with abuse and irreverence." (http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/profanation.html)..

==I think there are good reasons why the scriptures caution against profanity. D&C 6:12 seems appropriate: "Make not thy gift known unto any save it be those who are of thy faith. Trifle not with sacred things."

> So the problem as I see it, is that it is very distasteful to have to do internet research in order to find out things about the Church, and in the process get exposed to stuff you would rather not know.

==The problem as I see it is profaning sacred things. Trifling with sacred things.

> So should a member stay ignorant because they avoid general internet research on Church matters, and simply go with the sanitized stuff put out by the Church?

==This is a false dichotomy. There are all sorts of resources for studying the Restored Gospel that do not require profanation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stone holm]

> I had always felt that in the Church knowledge was a blessing and that we should encourage members as knowledgeable as possible by reading not only the Scriptures, but the sayings of the Prophets, and the History of the Church.

==Generally, yes. I think that we as a Church have a bigger problem with members knowing too little and not studying enough, rather than knowing/studying too much.

> I also always felt that the more knowledge people had including the blemishes and awkward prior activities, the better.

==I'm not sure I agree with that, for a few reasons.

==First, we generally lack context for historical events. For example, we weren't there when Joseph Smith ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. It's easy for us to second guess that decision nearly 200 years later, but we weren't there. We were not in those circumstances. This lack of context makes it very easy for us to judge unrighteously/ignorantly.

==Second, a "warts and all" approach may not take into account repentance. I, for one, am grateful that my every sin and indiscretion has not been laid bare for the world to see. If it were, I would likely either rebel or crumple.

==Third, emphasis on "blemishes" tends to lead to overemphasis. I am not saying that we should totally ignore human foibles, but we should not given them undue attention, either.

> As a result I was normally critical of the attempts to sanitize our history and deny the influence of politics, culture and the world on the Church. But of late, I have begun to feel that perhaps there are some things that I now know that I would possibly have been better off not knowing.

==I wonder if Latter-day Saints resist over-emphasizing sociopolitical influences because they see such emphasis - perhaps correctly - as an attempt to delegitimize spiritual influences on church-related events.

==Take, for example, the 1978 revelation on the priesthood. Cynics chalk this up as nothing but the result of "the influence of politics, culture and the world on the Church." Mormons, put on the defensive by people criticizing their faith, may react with a purist approach and suggest that there were not such influences at all. The reality, I think, is a mixture of the two. I don't see that as a problem. We don't live in a bubble where we are free from sociopolitical pressures. And we also are not free from biases and limited light and knowledge.

==In other words, God takes into account the circumstances in which we find ourselves. The cessation of polygamy exemplifies the conflation of these influences. Wilford Woodruff was quite clear about God taking sociopolitical issues into account (look at the excerpts appended to the OD-1). However, Pres. Woodruff was also clear about God being the author of the decision to end polygamy.

> This feeling has arisen as a result of the doctrine of the Second Annointing.

==A doctrine we are apparently not supposed to talk about much.

> I have tended to do my study based on the Journal of Discourses and teachings of the Prophets, and have shied away from the internet because there is so much false information on it and vicious articles written by former members and professional ministers. So when the subject came up and I got berated for not having done internet research, I did some internet research and it looks fairly obvious if you were surfing the net you would have known about the rite of the Second Annointing even if the Church hadn’t really openly taught it.

==I was in the military for nearly two years before I served my mission. As I approached the end of my time in the military and as my time to enter the MTC neared, I started writing to my father and asking him questions about the temple. He gave me some general answers, but in the main he said that it would not be appropriate for him to divulge too much about it. In looking back, he was right. When it comes to certain matters of significant sacredness, the study thereof should be circumspect, and it should be in the right time, and place, and circumstances, and information should be obtained from appropriate sources.

==Looking for guidance on sacred matters from enemies of the Restored Gospel is, in my view, not well-advised.

> Unfortunately, in the process of doing that internet research I got exposed to stuff I would just as soon not have thought about, namely: all the posts arguing over whether Mitt Romney had received the Second Annointing and whether Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun have had their Temple work done.

==I would invite you to consider the etymology of the term "profanity." It is from Old French profane (12c.) and directly from Latin profanus "unholy, not consecrated," according to Barnhart from pro fano "not admitted into the temple (with the initiates)," literally "out in front of the temple," from pro- "before" (see pro-) + fano, ablative of fanum "temple" (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=profane). To "profane" is to be irreverent "to any thing sacred." "A man is profane when he takes the name of God in vain, or treats sacred things with abuse and irreverence." (http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/profanation.html)..

==I think there are good reasons why the scriptures caution against profanity. D&C 6:12 seems appropriate: "Make not thy gift known unto any save it be those who are of thy faith. Trifle not with sacred things."

> So the problem as I see it, is that it is very distasteful to have to do internet research in order to find out things about the Church, and in the process get exposed to stuff you would rather not know.

==The problem as I see it is profaning sacred things. Trifling with sacred things.

> So should a member stay ignorant because they avoid general internet research on Church matters, and simply go with the sanitized stuff put out by the Church?

==This is a false dichotomy. There are all sorts of resources for studying the Restored Gospel that do not require profanation.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Not sure I understand the comments about profanity, or the relevance.  There is a distinction between speaking of sacred things such as the contents of the Temple endowment, etc.  Not sure how that applies to not speaking of even the existence of something.

[ERayR]

Not sure I understand the comments about profanity, or the relevance.  There is a distinction between speaking of sacred things such as the contents of the Temple endowment, etc.  Not sure how that applies to not speaking of even the existence of something.

 

The Second Anointing is a sacred ordinance.  It is spoken of in the place that sacred things are spoken.  It is not broadcast for the critics to profane.

[SamIam]

I had always felt that in the Church knowledge was a blessing and that we should encourage members as knowledgeable as possible by reading not only the Scriptures, but the sayings of the Prophets, and the History of the Church.  I also always felt that the more knowledge people had including the blemishes and awkward prior activities, the better.  As a result I was normally critical of the attempts to sanitize our history and deny the influence of politics, culture and the world on the Church.   But of late, I have begun to feel that perhaps there are some things that I now know that I would possibly have been better off not knowing.

 

This feeling has arisen as a result of the doctrine of the Second Annointing   I have tended to do my study based on the Journal of Discourses and teachings of the Prophets, and have shied away from the internet because there is so much false information on it and vicious articles written by former members and professional ministers.  So when the subject came up and I got berated for not having done internet research, I did some internet research and it looks fairly obvious if you were surfing the net you would have known about the rite of the Second Annointing even if the Church hadn’t really openly taught it.

 

Unfortunately, in the process of doing that internet research I got exposed to stuff I would just as soon not have thought about, namely: all the posts arguing over whether Mitt Romney had received the Second Annointing  and whether Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun have had their Temple work done.  So the problem as I see it, is that it is very distasteful to have to do internet research in order to find out things about the Church, and in the process get exposed to stuff you would rather not know.  So should a member stay ignorant because they avoid general internet research on Church matters, and simply go with the sanitized stuff put out by the Church?

You manifest multiple issues as to why these things create the grief in you that you are experiencing. First your spiritual education efforts are being driven by internet forum. You manifest a distinct discomfort with understanding what it is to be taught by the spirit and have chosen other guides.  Men and women who do not know correct doctrine and who also have grown accustomed to not asking God for understanding but are content to listen to each other and make their best guess. As long as that satisfies and provides answers to your questions, chances are you will hear no higher influences.

 

Second you have often indicated that you have little respect for the general authorities.  Those put forth by God to guide your efforts have been reduced in your mind to generally unreliable sources for spiritual insight. You put little credence in their guidance and thus what value they might be to helping you through your misunderstandings is further eroded by your lack of confidence.  Of course this brings us back to my first statement.  It is the providence of the spirit to confirm to your understanding those chosen of God are his servants. Either you have not sought this level of inspiration and now find yourself suffering the inevitable bewilderment of those who will take no guide, and the easy answers provided by those who cannot guide have become your preference or the weakness of your relationship with the spirit has left you not able to detect the spirits confirmations to you of such things.

 

To nut shell it, I can only think of the counsel that Wilford Woodruff and Brigham Young both received from Joseph Smith in visions after his death. His clearest counsel was to the effect that the single most important focus that every member must be engaged in before their spiritual growth can be sure is to "get the Holy Ghost."   It's absence or weak presence is crippling your own progress.